User talk:Johntex/Talk14

Portal Directory

I don't think that those are the only places those portals are listed. I tried to put them in, as it were, reverse-outline form, so that the various projects could see which portals were closely tied to their own subject area, as well as effectively letting them look "one-rung-up" to see which other portals might cover subjects which relate to part of their project. I know, for instance, in the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany, which I helped start up, we have three separate portals listed as being ones which could be closely tied to some articles in the scope of our project: Portal:Nazism, Portal:Ancient Germanic culture, and Portal:Germany. I just want to make sure that all the other projects at least have the opportunity to contact all the portals which might overlap their own subject to a degree. There is, of course, no obligation on the part of the portal managers to actually accept any content they don't want. And the list was intended for use in no other ways. Actually, I was intending on having it deleted on the 1st. You are, however, free to make any changes you see fit. Badbilltucker 01:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images in lists

Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Field

This is a response to your message. If the stadium in Austin is indeed larger, then the information I found on the stadium's article would be incorrect. "Seating capacity overall will rise to more than 90,000 from the current 85,123, surpassing Texas A&M University's Kyle Field as the largest football stadium in Texas." This is the last sentence under the section "2008 expansion." --Blueag9 23:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. That sentence was in error and I've corrected it. Thanks! Johntex\^talk 18:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essay and Linkimage

I don't know if you recall this, but many weeks ago you and I had a rather extensive dialogue about censorship and the use of Linkimages. I had encouraged you to try to collect your writings into an essay and now I'm wondering if you made any progress on that. I'd like to re-read it all myself and be able to refer others to it as well; I think that it would be very useful in a number of ongoing discussions throughout WP. On a seperate but closely related issue, there had been a discussion here about the use of Linkimage regarding a specific image used for that article. The resulting concensus supported the use of Linkimage in that case. Somewhat later, the original image was deleted as copyvio and then replaced with a different image. The new one was not Linkimaged since the discussion was limited to 2 editors; one supported it and one opposed. I'm wondering if this is a situation where a "Straw Poll" would be useful? I don't want to just reapply the Linkimage without discussion since the image has changed, but a debate between 3 lone editors is unlikely to produce a true consensus. Any thoughts on how best to proceed? Thanks for your time, and happy editing. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and the link. I know you're busy and I appreciate it. I had made the same observations you did about the new image, which is part of my current ambivalence. See you in the trenches :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin infallibility?

Interfereing with an administrator is against policy. ... You should never, however, revert an action made by an admin if the admin has stated that are acting in their administrator capacity. Johntex\talk 16:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Johntex. I think I have a problem with the above. It seems to be putting admins above 'ordinary' users? I'm not saying that Duke was right or that you were wrong. But 'because I'm an admin' doesn't seem like much of an answer to the questions he was asking. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are definitely not infallible. However, they do deserve the benefit of the doubt and an ordinary user should never revert an admin if the admin is stating they are taking an action AS an admin (this has nothing to do with regular content editting). If the ordinary user feels the admin has made a mistake, they should discuss it with the admin first. If that fails to satisfy them, then they should file a complaint at WP:ANI or some other appropriate venue.

I stand by my statement: "[One] should never, however, revert an action made by an admin if the admin has stated that are acting in their administrator capacity." Johntex\^talk 03:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't agree with that statement. I think it's the word 'never'. Admins can make mistakes. Admins deserve the benefit of the doubt, but so do all users. If an ordinary user suspects an admin has made a mistake, they should discuss before correcting the mistake, in case the later knows something the former doesn't. And if an admin suspects an ordinary user is wrong, they should discuss first, then act, for the same reason. But that is when there is doubt. If I know that you have made a mistake, I'd correct it, and I'd expect you to do the same for me if things were reversed. I agree that it can lead to problems, such as one user mistakenly assuming that another user is wrong, and I agree that it is more likely than a random admin is right than a random user. But it happens. Remember that some of our ordinary users are more experienced that some of our admins, especially if you take off-wiki experience into account.

Saying "because I'm an admin" doesn't educate anyone. The important thing is the rightness of the action. If you really can't explain why you think you're right, you may still be right. But I'd rather see "Trust me, I'm an admin, I know it's the right thing to do" than "Because I'm an admin, that makes it the right thing to do". That's not quite what you said, but forgive me for saying this, it comes close. Regards, Ben Aveling. PS. No reply necessary if you've seen it, but if you haven't, I've also replied to your other message on my talk page. Sorry for the slight fractured conversation. 11:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:MikeMotney

Can you block this user for vandalism? He's been warned by several users and seems to be persisting. Thanks Dubc0724 18:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Hex rally

I see that you are an admin here and have made edits to many pages. I was reading about the Hex Rally and saw the blurb about losing 18 straight times to A&M. Knowing that they've only beaten us something like 34 times EVER, and with many of those wins coming in the cheating years of Jackie Sherrill, this didn't sound right at all.

I used this link (http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=36&url_subchannel_id=&url_article_id=1349&change_well_id=2) to check the facts, and they were waaaaaay off. The 18 years prior to the 1941 game actually had Texas with a 10-7-1 series record, a far cry from 0-18.

As I'm not familiar with editing Wikis, I figured I'd pass this information along to you and you'd know what to do with it. Thanks so much for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.10.234 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 20 November 2006

I made this change. In fact, Texas had not won in College Station in 18 years, but in typical fashion, the Daily Texan article used as a source said "UT beat the Aggies for the first time in 18 years, 23-0." Mishatx 06:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice firing line response :) - ChrisKennedy^(talk) 09:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous

12-7. Gig 'em! Blueag9 20:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the win. We'll let you win another one in about seven more years. If we didn't let you win one occassionally, you might refuse to play. Johntex\^talk 20:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Re: Win

Well I think it should be more of the 2:1 ratio. That's nearly the ratio of wins, Texas:Texas A&M. So far I think it's 73-35-5. As long as we have McGee, Goodson, and J-Lane, I think we have a good chance the next two years to win. Blueag9 23:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are definitely right 2:1 would be more realistic. I think you definitely have a good chance for 2 in a row with Kyle Field on your side next year. Good luck in your bowl game. Johntex\^talk 05:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceability guidelines

Per your "Agree" vote at Wikipedia talk:Images of living people I think you'll find my proposed replaceability guidelines worth a look. Daniel Case 06:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Class A Terminology

Johntex, It has generally been decided for the purposes of the BSA uniform article that "class A" is not proper Scout terminology. BSA uses "field uniform" and "official uniform" to refer to the uniform in the picture. The addition of the sash doesn't change things. Please consider reverting to one of these options. Thanks. --NThurston 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<raspy voice> Well, back in my day, we had Class A uniforms and we were thankful for them - we wore them all day every day - to school and back - in the snow - uphill - both ways... </raspy voice>. Interesting. Thanks for informing me of this. "Back in my day" we always used to use the term "Class A" as an official term. We would never have considered a merit badge sash or OA sash to be part of a "field uniform". I will gladly revert myself to "official uniform" since you have clued me in. Johntex\^talk 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on Kalduny

I'm willing to see where it lands. :) However, I have another question. How long does an Afd last? The reason I ask is here there are 12-13 votes to delete, 2 redirects, and one (almost rabid) keep. Granted the one keep is the author but doesn't this qualify as WP:SNOW? Just wondering. Nashville Monkey 20:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to keep, then I think the article stays. But, the article needs clean up. Because, if you are voting to keep (and you nominated it) instead of delete, then I think the nomination is withdrawn. B e a rly 541 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd interpetation of WP:NOT censored

Where did you get the idea that it only applied to vandalism? While it does apply to such things, the policy states quite explicitly that it applies to articles about offensive subjects: "articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content". --tjstrf talk 22:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also says that "obviously inappropriate content...is usually removed immediately" - that still leaves up to the editors to determine what is inappropriate. Citing WP:not censored is equivalent to linking to a policy that says "Editors decide what should go in the article, unless it is illegal or violates other policies". Citing WP:not censored does nothing to prove that an image should stay. Johntex\^talk 22:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does prove that objections to it based solely on its sexual nature without other considerations are invalid, however, and that relevant images, links, etc. may stay. Those are the bits we are citing it for. --tjstrf talk 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't prove that at all. It is up to us to decide what goes into any article. If we want to decide to keep something out, for any reason we may do so. It is up to the editors. Johntex\^talk 23:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, any policy may be overruled given the right circumstances and needs case by case judgment. We occasionally keep bio pages written by their subjects against the advice of WP:VAIN, for instance.

However, the purpose of policy is to reflect prior consensus. Simply because judgments need to be made case by case does not mean we cannot cite a policy which contains statements regarding the subject at hand. If you preferred that I cite other discussions in which it was determined that offensive images could stay, or other people who agreed with me, or dug up a comment from Jimbo on censorship, or copy-pasted the content of the relevant WP:NOT section instead with the prefixed statement "According to Wikipedia policy..." I could do those things as well, but it's a lot easier to type WP:NOT#CENSORED and most people complaining about the lack of censorship are honestly unaware of the policy. There is no purpose to reinventing the wheel every time we receive another instance of a perennial complaint, the entire purpose of policy is that it be cited in an informative manner in these circumstances. --tjstrf talk 23:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving just a link to WP:NOT#CENSORED smacks of jingoism. It could also be interpreted as a scare tactic in that the word "censorship" carries negative connotations for many people. But most of the time the word "censorship" can more accurately be replaced by "editorial judgement", which carries a positive connotation for many people.

If we decide to leave something out, it is not censorship, it is editorial choice. Censorship is action taken by a government or other central body. It is not a relevant term to use in a discussion about whehter something should be included or not.

At AfD and other places, people scream "Deleting my article is censorship", yet they still get deleted if they meet the criteria for deletion. Editors may say "Don't delete my addition to the article, that is censorship." In reality, we have to prune articles and remove bad prose, useless links, etc. All of those things are individual judgements. There is no 100% foolproof way to say if an external link or bit of text or image adds to an article or not. We have to discuss it.

In the end my point remains the same - simply linking to that policy is not a good argument for whether something should stay. Johntex\^talk 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally pipe the link so that it displays "Wikipedia is not censored" so that it's less esoteric. Those other types of censorship complaints are related to freedom of speech rather than appropriateness for minors. Numerous debates have upheld the principle that relevant offensive images should be included in articles, so consensus holds that "Wikipedia is not censored" has a meaning beyond simply forbidding institutional censorship, applying to editorial censorship without broad consensus as well.

The majority of cases where censorship is brought up are not debates over the specific appropriateness of an image, they are generic complaints along the lines of "that picture offends me, get it off!". For most of these cases you simply need to inform the person that something being inappropriate for minors to view is not a reason for removal. And what better way is there to inform a new user that Wikipedia is not censored for minors than linking them to the official policy statement that says so?

When a real debate starts over an issue or image that entails concerns beyond appropriateness for minors, then there will be additional arguments that are necessary to make regarding the relevance of the image. Even then linking to the policy is appropriate because it is the basis for the relevance defense.

In summary, Wikipedia is not censored for minors is the perfect answer to a complaint from a new user who is concerned about an image being inappropriate for minors. If they press the issue, dispute the relevance of the image to the page, or otherwise raise additional concerns, then a detailed argument in defense of the image may be necessary. --tjstrf talk 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood the original poster's comments. They make an analogy that we do not show child pornography on the paedophilia page. Showing child pornography is illegal. Many lolicon images would be illegal. They are saying that we can't show an image that is illegal. Citing WP:not censored does nothing to refute this. Johntex\^talk 23:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if an adult is saying that an image offends them, then linking to a policy that claims "we don't censor for the protection of minors" is still meaningless. If we want to argue for a particular image to be kept, the best thing to do is to explain what it adds to the article. Johntex\^talk 23:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the original poster's analogy with an argument regarding legality, actually. (Indeed, it appears I never even linked to WP:NOT.) I've been using this user talk thread to discuss the issue of our differing interpretations of WP:NOT#CENSORED in general rather than simply as regards a specific case. What Lolicon images are you claiming would be illegal in Florida anyway? Certainly not the one we presently use, which is just a girl in a swimsuit. Even if it involved a real human, it couldn't even be ruled lascivious. --tjstrf talk 00:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not replying to your post. I was replying to the post by Eyrian. Eyrian is the one that linked to WP:not censored without making any sort of actual statement. I did not criticize the current image, or any image. I am fine with the current image. My entire point is that some people link to WP:not censored as if that policy prevents us from removing things. That is not the case. If we think something should be removed, we can decide together to remove it. That's all. Johntex\^talk 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teensy little question....

I removed the {{linkimage from Creampie and Autofellatio per WP NOT and that states:

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive.

and from the The Content Disclaimer

Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy.

Could you please explain your changes?

Booksworm Talk to me! 09:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Those two disclaimers serve to put people on notice that we may feature content that some people find objectionable. They do not obligate us to do so. It is up to us to use our best judgement. In fact, WP:not censored specifically says "objectional content is usually removed immediately". In any case, I did not remove any content, I preserved it behind a link. This is a very reasonable compromise. It has been used before and in fact Autofellatio has had this image linkimaged for long periods of time. As we have discussed (and seemingly agreed) on those talk pages numerous times, using the linkimage is a great compromise between people who say we need these images and people who say we would be better off without them. Johntex\^talk 12:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example here is a direct link to a very exhaustive poll on the subject. Johntex\^talk 12:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive moves

If you are an admin, can you pleaase block User talk:Yaksha ? it has come to my attention that that user has made excessive moving of pages without consensus, WP:ANI shows a member of the MedCom agreeing with this request, thank you,

See here as well [1]

Wiki eZach| talk 02:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Bevo

Hey, sorry about that John. I thought the references were in long-form because you did them back when you were unfamiliar with the ref/ref style or there was some confusion about the necessity of references after the first. You can change it back if you want. I was just noticing that and making those changes. Thanks. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dawn

While I appreciate your assistance I recently viewed Red Dawn and saw no F-15 Eagles in the movie. There is a passing aircraft that is, in fact, and F-111 but is not an F-15. The F-15 Eagle has only been used in the movie 'Air Force One', it is not used in any other Hollywood movie. I listened to dialogue and heard no mention of F-15's.

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your edit to Red Dawn worked and has now been reverted because you introduced incorrect information into the article. Please use the WP:Sandbox if you wish to experiment further, and only but verifiable information into actual articles. Thanks! Joh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natesway78 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Really? In that case I apologize.

The article has seemingly had the F15 informaiton in it for a long time. Usually, when someone changes a long-standing point in an article, the change is incorrect.

We now have a dilema. It is impossible for sure which version is correct. (Do we trust you or do we trust whoever said F15.) I could go out and rent the movie, but then we would be relying on my ability to correctly identify the two aircraft. It would arguably be a violation of WP:NOR. The ideal solution would be if we can find a printed reference that says which it is. That may be impossible to find for such as small peice of detail.

Therefore, I propose we simply change the article to read "fighter plane". That would be safe.

Do you agree? Johntex\^talk 17:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think placing 'fighter plane' would work well if you choose to do that.Natesway78 17:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC) natesway78[reply]

Ref conv

Sorry for the downtime. References converter is now back up and running. About a week ago the hard drive in my server crashed. Luckily it stayed together long enough to allow me to pull all the data off onto a new hard drive, but I still had to go through the process of installing Linux on the new hard drive, installing all the necessary programs, and loading in all of the old data from the server. I got all of my essential services up within two days (CVS, Apache, Wiki), but I kind of forgot about web scripts, which I finally got around to fixing today. Everything should be fully functional again. If you see any bugs, just send me a message. You are receiving this message because you are on the spamlist. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, simply remove your name. --Cyde Weys 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypto

There is a section on Apocalypto's talk page called Citations for possible use. There may be useful content to help you continue expanding. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having problems with User:Chowbok

A problem has developed over an image at StarMetro where I've uploaded a screenshot of a bus and documented it as such. Chowbak insists that it is not to be used because a photo should be obtained by camera. Please way in and see discussion at Image talk:Star Metro01.jpg Thanks. Noles1984 Noles1984 23:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we are clear, anyone with any education knows it takes like 5 seconds to change your IP. You already know who this is cause you banned me yesterday.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.88.69 (talk • contribs)

Dear Johntex, You are one of the most biased individuals I have ever seen claim the status of "unbiased moderator." Please stop posting under the guise of a neutral third party, everyone will have moreo respect for you when you do. You clearly either attend the University of Texas or are an alumnus of that instution and your support for the team is evident from your contributions. It is a service when you ban posters who make exaggerations, it is hypocrasy when you also do so yourself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.59.126 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2006 December 14

If you could please cite something specific that you think I did incorrectly, I would be happy to discuss it with you. I'd love it if you could help me be a better contributor! Unfortunately, you are the same person who vandalized Hook 'em Horns with this edit so I doubt I have much to learn from you about what is good or respectful. Johntex\^talk 01:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You gayed up the site. [Childish, poor quality artwork removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super112211221122 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 2006 December 14

Oh my God, that was not childish artwork. I challenge you, sir, to a duel. Best picture of Mack Brown's mouth herpes wins. If you win, I shall stop posting. If I win, you shall commit seppuku. What say you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) 18:05, 2006 December 14 76.211.187.69

Seppuku is so 1873ish, don't you think? I'll just block your new sock instead. Johntex\^talk 02:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]